OpenDART MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a data retrieval tool ('정보를 제공합니다'), implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose important details like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one explaining parameters. The parameter explanations are clear and specific. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating the purpose statement from parameter documentation more clearly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does an adequate job. It covers the purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. For a data retrieval tool with sibling alternatives, this represents a minimum viable level of completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides crucial parameter semantics that aren't in the schema. It explains that corp_code is an 8-digit unique identifier, bsns_year is a 4-digit business year (2015+), and reprt_code corresponds to specific report types with code mappings. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible parameter nuances.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '이사·감사의 개인별 보수현황 - 정기보고서 내 이사·감사의 개인별 보수현황 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides individual compensation information for directors/auditors from periodic reports). It specifies the verb ('제공합니다' - provides) and resource (individual compensation data), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_compensation_by_type or get_top5_compensation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several compensation-related sibling tools (get_compensation_by_type, get_top5_compensation, get_total_compensation, get_unregistered_exec_compensation), but the description offers no comparison or context about which tool to choose for different scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.